Freedom At Risk In Media Changes

Peter Andren - Canberra Times

There have been many claims, from the usual suspects, of course, that the relaxation of current media laws will lead to growth in Australian media. I can certainly envisage growth, but it's the sort of growth those media operators salivating over the proposed Alston laws do not want publicised.

There'll be a growth in concentration of key media ownership, a growth in foreign ownership, growth in the political muscle of News Limited and the Packers, and a growth in the editorial and financial patronage handed out to helpful political parties.

As a 25-year participant in the media industry, both in Sydney and the bush, before entering politics, I think I have a fair handle on just what's at stake in these media law ''reforms''.

When I worked at Channel 7 in Sydney in the late 1960s, it was owned by John Fairfax, which also ran the Sydney Morning Herald, the Sun, Financial Review and radio station 2GB.

To suggest there wasn't a close watch kept on the editorial line of all media under the Fairfax banner is a nonsense. Legendary Fairfax executive Rupert Henderson saw to that, with the news bureau for all Fairfax media operating from the Broadway headquarters, sharing material, editorial copy and staff, all suckled by the common editorial breast.

As Rupert Henderson lorded over Fairfax so, too, I discovered a few years later did Kerry Packer at Channel 9. There I observed several instances of direct interference in editorial policy before, during and after the 1975 dismissal.

So, it's a nonsense to suggest similar centralised influence over editorial policy would not continue across individual media holdings and any conglomerates under changes proposed by the Government in its Broadcasting Services (Media Ownership) Bill currently before the Senate.

New section 61P of the bill would require broadcasting licensees, armed with brand-new cross-media exemption ''certificates'', to ensure the objective of editorial separation was continuously met. This is to be achieved, according to Minister Alston, by appropriate ''organisational charts'' and separate editorial policies, news management, news compilation, news gathering as well as something called ''interpretation capabilities''.

But the minister's own explanatory memorandum to the legislation says, ''These requirements do not prevent the sharing of resources or other forms of cooperation between jointly controlled media operations.''

This is exactly where editorial separation goes out the window. While a single proprietor could, in theory, isolate the newsrooms for each of its media outlets, it is fairies in the garden stuff to believe that, say, the owner of both an Orange newspaper and radio station would not seek the most cost-efficient way of operating those services.

That would invariably see a sharing of not only resources, but also editorial policy. As news organisations now get much of their material from a common AAP or Reuters ''wire service'', what would stop access to a common intranet ''news wire'' between the various media operated by a common owner?

Separate editorial policies sound fine in theory, but are impossible to police. We don't have public broadcast licence renewal hearings any more to examine breaches in areas such as local content for regional TV. Unless this system is restored, there's no way of tracing the editorial processes after any relaxation of cross-media ownership in regional towns, let alone Sydney.

While the minister acknowledges the difficulty of measuring public interest and media influence, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Australian Broadcasting Authority will be asked to ensure media acquisitions and mergers are in the best interests of the Australian public.

How will they determine whether a common (though obviously informal) editorial policy across, for example, a merged News Limited and Channel 10 on a future invasion of Iran is in the public interest? Or whether a Rural Press-Prime TV merger might, however subtly, promote a common editorial policy on the benefits of genetically modified crops?

Absentee owners have disastrous impact on local content and jobs.

One of the Government's selling points has been the virtue of freeing up our media to foreign investment. Forget for a moment the current democratic benefits of having Princes of Print segregated from Queens of the Screen.

One need only listen to the disastrous impact the foreign Rajahs of Radio have had on local content and jobs at country and regional commercial radio stations to see the dangers of absentee foreign ownership with its remote and culturally unsympathetic management.

Tasmanian Independent Senator Brian Harradine appears to hold the crucial vote the Government needs to ''grow'' our media. He wants to ban mergers between television and newspapers in capital cities. I've written to him arguing why such a policy is needed in rural media too.

National Party leader John Anderson is on record as saying ''diversity of ownership should in theory encourage diversity of views''. If he really believes that he should be opposing this legislation.

One less owner, in itself, reduces the possible range of opinions by one. That's bad for democracy.

Peter Andren is the Independent MP for Calare.